manleystanley opened this issue on Apr 10, 2004 ยท 6 posts
manleystanley posted Sat, 10 April 2004 at 9:00 AM
What is with the XL postings in the galleries? Not that I mind the large pictures, but few of the pictures that I looked at in the galleries, pumping them up ruind the picture. The thumbs looked good but when open the pictures the size had distorted the picture; ie made them grainy, out of foucus, or my favorite the poser fingure with skin that looked like my banded height map files. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it my computer; which I dought.
dialyn posted Sat, 10 April 2004 at 10:27 AM
People are under the illusion either that everyone has a giant computer screen (not all of us do), that everyone downloads and resizes their graphics (which I never do), that bigger is better (definitely not true), and/or they just don't care about the viewer (this one gets my vote). Those are my theories.
SeanE posted Sun, 11 April 2004 at 3:26 AM
yah - I saw one guy's pics once that were 5000x3000 pixels and when I IM'd him about it he told me he ran a 22" monitor at 2400 res. and that I had the problem not him! Then he complained that my pics were thumbnail sized on his screen when he looked at the full sized images and that maybe I should just go out an get a bigger monitor! ...Kinda hard to lug around when you use a laptop though... what a dropkick...
manleystanley posted Sun, 11 April 2004 at 8:14 AM
I've got a 15" moniter, and do to bifocals, I'd love a 17" flat. I've been working in 960 x 720, an odd size but fills my screen nicely {not compleatly}. The problems might be that some people don't relise that if the program they're using dosen't generate renders in larger sizes, enlarging them in post production just spreads the pixles out losing detail and sutle shadeing. Personaly I like to see the entire picture all at once, other wise it turns into the five blind men trying to describe an elephant.
pearce posted Sun, 11 April 2004 at 6:25 PM
"... and that I had the problem not him! Then he complained that my pics were thumbnail sized on his screen..." This is a my-dick's-bigger-than-yours pathology. I always post pix at 800 x 600, which in fact looks small on my 1153 x 864 output, but is good manners. Having to shuffle around an image that's too big for the screen with the arrow keys does it more harm than looking at a too-small version of it. Good point manley. Mick.
Rykk posted Sun, 11 April 2004 at 7:29 PM
Not to mention that the amount of compression required to get an image upped and under Rendo's file limit tends to blur the fine details of an image. I, also, always up them at 800x600. Its perfect for 1024x768 resolution which is, by far, the most common resolution used these days. Giant images lose the effect of being able to see and enjoy the total impact of an image. I also do it because I thought I read something when I started here that 800x600 was the limit for image size, but I guess - happily - I misunderstood. Rick